Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 5, 2026 amends claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-12 and 17-18. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 5, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The amended independent claims, which necessitate a new ground of rejection, are taught by Held in combination with Miller as shown in the rejections that follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the words “tuning the regenerative braking” should be changed to “tuning the adaptive regenerative braking” to correct an antecedent basis issue.
Regarding claim 1, the words “reducing the regenerative braking” should be changed to “reducing the adaptive regenerative braking” to correct an antecedent basis issue.
Regarding claim 11, the words: ”A vehicle vehicle comprising:” should be changed to “A vehicle comprising:” to correct a typographical error.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding each of independent claims 1 and 11, it is unclear what is meant by “reset the vehicle speed to the set speed.” Since the foregoing clause in each of these claims is preceded by “a set speed accompanying the request of the function”, it follows that the speed has already been set. Therefore, what is the purpose of “reset[ting] the vehicle speed to the same set speed, as the speed has already been set to that speed? Based on the foregoing reasons, it is unclear what the claim is directed to. Since it is unclear what the claim is directed to, the foregoing clause will be struck out for the sake of performing an examination on the merits.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not remedy the foregoing issues and are also rejected by way of dependency to their respective independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2019/0126759) in view of Held et al. (DE 02023102838 A1) (English translation provided on 12/05/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a driving control method of a vehicle using adaptive regenerative braking, the method comprising: before or after entry of the vehicle into a downhill road, receiving a request of a function for adaptive downhill driving of the vehicle to implement maintenance of a constant speed during the downhill driving of the vehicle by the adaptive regenerative braking and a set speed accompanying the request of the function; (see Miller at [0012] which discloses that as another example, when a vehicle is going downhill, a driver of a vehicle may apply the service brakes to slow the vehicle and/or to bring the vehicle to a constant speed when neutral braking torque could instead be applied to slow the vehicle, and that when the driver applies service brakes to slow a vehicle going downhill, not only do the service brakes undergo unnecessary wear and heating of the service brakes that could be avoided by the application of neutral braking torque, but also energy that could be recaptured by the regenerative braking system is lost; see Miller at [0013] which discloses that one embodiment is directed to solving problems related to optimizing the behavior of regenerative braking in various scenarios, more particularly, an embodiment is directed to determining amounts of torque to apply during regenerative braking, to maintaining a desired speed and thereby vehicle stability while performing regenerative braking without depression of the brake pedal, and to limiting use of service brakes in vehicles undergoing regenerative braking; Examiner maps desired speed to set speed. Also, see Miller at [0015] which discloses that motor controller may be coupled to a set of driver controls; see Miller at [0017] which discloses that the techniques of this embodiment may apply to a hybrid or electric vehicle having a motor controller that is configured to determine different amounts of neutral braking torque to maximize energy recapture and to maintain an approximately constant vehicle speed when the vehicle is engaged in a particular braking mode, such as a neutral braking mode and more particularly, a downhill neutral braking mode; see Miller at [0207] which discloses that motor controller 102 is also coupled to driver controls 110 and to drive motor 104; see Miller at [0208] which discloses that the operator may also use driver controls 110 to control various functions and/or modes or operation of vehicle configuration 100; according to various examples, motor controller 102 may control the operation of vehicle configuration 100 and more particularly drive motor 104 in response to receiving control signals, inputs, etc. (e.g. from driver controls 110, drive motor 102, BMS 108, and/or various other components of vehicle configuration 100); see Miller at [0221] which discloses that driver controls 110 may also comprise a Downhill SW_6 switch input thereby allowing the vehicle operator to implement a downhill control mode if the Downhill SW_6 switch is in the ON position; see Miller at [0241] which discloses that motor controller 102 may be in charge of various functions related to the operation of vehicle configuration 100 including functions related to regenerative braking. Examiner notes that putting the Downhill SW_6 switch is in the ON position corresponds to receiving a request of a function for adaptive downhill driving. Examiner maps receiving control signals, inputs, etc. from driver controls that control various functions and/or modes of operation, such as amounts of torque to apply during regenerative braking and maintaining a desired speed, to receiving a request of a function for adaptive downhill driving of the vehicle to implement maintenance of a constant speed during downhill driving of the vehicle by the adaptive regenerative braking and a set speed accompanying the request of the function.)
in response to a vehicle speed during the downhill driving being equal to or higher than an upper limit above the set speed, controlling driving of the vehicle by tuning regenerative braking according to a constant speed mode belonging to a type of the adaptive generative braking to make the vehicle speed converge to the set speed; and in response to the vehicle speed during the downhill driving being equal to or lower than a lower limit below the set speed, controlling the driving of the vehicle by reducing the regenerative braking through release of the constant speed mode (see Miller at [0020] which discloses that some implementations, motor controller may be configured to determine an amount of torque to apply to the drive motor to cause the vehicle to maintain an approximately constant speed; see Miller at [0250] which discloses that in some implementations, motor controller 102 may be configured to determine an amount of torque to apply to the motor 104 to cause the vehicle to maintain an approximately constant speed and such that the regenerative current supplied by drive motor 104 to battery pack 106 is maximized and that motor controller 102 may determine an amount of torque to apply to drive motor 104 when the vehicle is engaged in a regenerative braking mode in various manners. Examiner notes that Miller’s motor controller applies regenerative braking to at least teach in response to a vehicle speed during the downhill driving being equal to the set speed. Examiner notes that maintaining an approximately constant speed corresponds to converging to the set speed. Also, see Miller at [0390] which discloses that the Front Torque Rollback Function has the tendency to provide full torque from both front and rear controllers at low vehicle speeds and gradually reduce the contribution of the front controller as the vehicle speed increases; Examiner notes that reducing the regenerative torque contribution using the Front Torque Rollback Function from the front motor at low vehicle speeds allows the speed to increase. Examiner notes that application of the Front Torque Rollback Function releases the constant speed mode.)
Miller does not expressly disclose determining that a redetermination condition of the set speed is satisfied based on a difference between the vehicle speed and the set speed being equal to or greater than a reference speed difference: and [reset the vehicle speed to the set speed],wherein determining the redetermination condition is based on downhill information associated with a downhill route for the downhill driving and torque information of the vehicle on the downhill route, which, in a related art, Held teaches (see Held at page 10 which discloses that in another example, the increased vehicle speed may be based on the set speed level maintained on the downhill road section and that the increased vehicle speed can, for example, correspond to the set speed level plus an offset speed and that the offset speed can be set manually by the driver, be determined automatically or correspond to a preset value. Examiner maps setting manually by the driver or determining automatically the preset value to resetting the vehicle speed to the set speed. Further, see Held at page 9 which discloses that vehicle speed control in vehicles is often accomplished by two interacting systems, i.e. a speed control system that requests torque from a motor system to maintain a speed set by the speed controller, and a downhill speed control system that prevents the vehicle from over-speeding, particularly on downhill road sections, by maintaining a braking speed level. Examiner notes that vehicle speed control, by way of using a speed control system that requests torque from a motor system to maintain a speed set by a speed controller, corresponds to determining that a redetermination condition is based on downhill information associated with a downhill route for the downhill driving and torque information of the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller to include determining that a redetermination condition of the set speed is satisfied based on a difference between the vehicle speed and the set speed being equal to or greater than a reference speed difference: and wherein determining the redetermination condition is based on downhill information associated with a downhill route for the downhill driving and torque information of the vehicle on the downhill route, as taught by Held.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to automatically control speed of a vehicle in such a way as to maintain a set speed level, as suggested by Held at page 9.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Miller teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the request of the function is received by at least one of a request from a user that turns on an adaptive downhill driving function, or a determination of an acceleration demand level of the user being below a reference demand level; (see Miller at [0221] which discloses that Driver controls 110 may also comprise a Downhill SW_6 switch input thereby allowing the vehicle operator to implement a downhill control mode if the Downhill SW_6 switch is in the ON position; see Miller at [0241] which discloses that motor controller 102 may be in charge of various functions related to the operation of vehicle configuration 100 including functions related to regenerative braking. Examiner notes that putting the Downhill SW_6 switch is in the ON position corresponds to receiving a request of a function from a user that turns on an adaptive downhill driving function.)
and wherein the set speed is determined as the vehicle speed at a time at which the request of the function is received (see Held at page 2 which discloses that lower energy consumption can be achieved by downhill speed control functions, in which the actual speed of the vehicle differs from a predetermined, e.g. B. may deviate from the speed selected by the driver. Examiner notes that the speed may be selected by the driver may differ from a predetermined speed after selecting a downhill speed control function when going downhill with the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Miller teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the entry of the vehicle into the downhill road is determined by map information associated with a route on which the vehicle is running, (see Miller at [0423] which discloses that for any electric vehicle, the expected operating range depends on the amount of stored energy remaining in the vehicle energy storage system, the road and terrain conditions that the vehicle must traverse, and the required route including and range for a safe return if desired.)
slope information on the route, and speed information of the vehicle on the route; and the entry based on the speed information determines that the vehicle is running on the downhill road in a case in which an acceleration request of a user is not received and the vehicle speed is higher than the set speed (see Held, at page 11 in conjunction with Fig. 3, which discloses that already explained, the actual speed of the vehicle 100 increases due to gravity when the vehicle enters the downhill road segment 510, i.e., at the position P1 in 3, and that the acceleration of the vehicle depends on parameters such as the slope of the downhill section of the road and the weight of the vehicle. Examiner notes that the actual speed of the vehicle increasing when due to acceleration, such as gravity, over the downhill road 510 depicted in Fig. 3. Examiner further notes that an acceleration request of the user would not be received as gravity provides the acceleration in the instance where the vehicle runs downhill.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Miller teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the driving of the vehicle to make the vehicle speed converge to the set speed further comprises: in response to a charge state for a battery of the vehicle being equal to or greater than a threshold charge amount during the downhill driving, disabling the adaptive regenerative braking so as not to apply the constant speed mode; and controlling the driving of the vehicle by a manipulation of a user or a brake assist request of the user, (see Miller at [0208] which discloses that the operator may also use driver controls 110 to control various functions and/or modes or operation of vehicle configuration 100; according to various examples, motor controller 102 may control the operation of vehicle configuration 100 and more particularly drive motor 104 in response to receiving control signals, inputs, etc. (e.g. from driver controls 110, drive motor 102, BMS 108, and/or various other components of vehicle configuration 100); see Miller at [0250] which discloses that in some implementations, motor controller 102 may be configured to determine an amount of torque to apply to the motor 104 to cause the vehicle to maintain an approximately constant speed and such that the regenerative current supplied by drive motor 104 to battery pack 106 is maximized and that motor controller 102 may determine an amount of torque to apply to drive motor 104 when the vehicle is engaged in a regenerative braking mode in various manners; see Miller at [0252] which discloses that the conditions associated with selecting a given neutral braking torque curve and with determining the amount of torque to apply to the drive motor may take various forms; see Miller at [0308] which discloses that if motor controller 102 determines that the amount of regenerative braking current exceeds the current the battery pack 106 can accept, the drive current limit handling subroutine may cause drive motor 104 to reduce the amount of regenerative current supplied to the battery pack 106.)
wherein the brake assist request is identified as a use request of the user for a retarder (see Held at page 7 which discloses that the vehicle 100 may also include various braking systems (not shown), e.g. B. a conventional service brake system, and can consist of brake discs with associated brake pads, which are arranged next to each wheel, that heavy vehicles are often equipped with additional braking systems, in the form of conventional retarders 112 and/or other supplemental braking systems such as various types of exhaust braking systems, compression braking systems, electromagnetic braking systems, engine braking and regenerative braking systems. Further, Held at page 7 discloses that based on commands initiated by the driver of the vehicle and/or other control units, the control arrangement (or other suitable control unit) sends control signals to appropriate system modules to retrieve the desired braking force from the desired braking systems, and that additional braking systems can also be controlled directly by the driver, via keys or pedals, and that in this case, the pedal or the lever can be connected directly to another control unit, which contains information e.g., sends to a retarder control unit. Examiner notes that the driver has the capability, by way of commands initiated by the driver of the vehicle, to send control signals to appropriate system modules to retrieve the desired braking force from desired braking systems, such as a brake assist system including the use of a retarder, and that additional braking systems can also be controlled directly by the driver. Examiner notes that the driver’s commands may comprise retrieving or requesting brake assist provided by a retarder.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Miller teaches the method of claim 1, and enabling an operation of the adaptive regenerative braking during the downhill driving in a case in which the request of a user for the function and a use request of the user for the retarder are present (see Miller at [0013] which discloses that one embodiment is directed to solving problems related to optimizing the behavior of regenerative braking in various scenarios, more particularly, an embodiment is directed to determining amounts of torque to apply during regenerative braking, to maintaining a desired speed and thereby vehicle stability while performing regenerative braking without depression of the brake pedal, and to limiting use of service brakes in vehicles undergoing regenerative braking; Examiner maps desired speed to set speed. Also, see Miller at [0015] which discloses that motor controller may be coupled to a set of driver controls. Also, see Miller at [0207] which discloses that motor controller 102 is also coupled to driver controls 110 and to drive motor 104; see Miller at [0208] which discloses that the operator may also use driver controls 110 to control various functions and/or modes or operation of vehicle configuration 100; according to various examples, motor controller 102 may control the operation of vehicle configuration 100 and more particularly drive motor 104 in response to receiving control signals, inputs, etc. (e.g. from driver controls 110, drive motor 102, BMS 108, and/or various other components of vehicle configuration 100). Examiner notes that the driver may use his driver controls to control motor controller and drive motor to control various functions and/or modes or operation of the vehicle configuration.)
wherein the vehicle is equipped with a retarder that is available for brake assist during the downhill driving, and wherein the driving control method further comprises disabling the brake assist by the retarder (see Held at page 7 which discloses that the vehicle 100 may also include various braking systems (not shown), e.g. B. a conventional service brake system, and can consist of brake discs with associated brake pads, which are arranged next to each wheel, that heavy vehicles are often equipped with additional braking systems, in the form of conventional retarders 112 and/or other supplemental braking systems such as various types of exhaust braking systems, compression braking systems, electromagnetic braking systems, engine braking and regenerative braking systems. Further, Held at page 7 discloses that based on commands initiated by the driver of the vehicle and/or other control units, the control arrangement (or other suitable control unit) sends control signals to appropriate system modules to retrieve the desired braking force from the desired braking systems, and that additional braking systems can also be controlled directly by the driver, via keys or pedals, and that in this case, the pedal or the lever can be connected directly to another control unit, which contains information e.g., sends to a retarder control unit. Examiner notes that the driver has the capability, by way of commands initiated by the driver of the vehicle, to send control signals to appropriate system modules to retrieve the desired braking force from desired braking systems and that additional braking systems can also be controlled directly by the driver. Examiner notes that the driver’s commands may comprise enabling or disabling the brake assist by the retarder.)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Miller teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the request of the function and the set speed before the entry of the vehicle into the downhill road, determining whether or not a redetermination condition of the set speed is satisfied based on a difference between the vehicle speed and the set speed during the downhill driving being equal to or greater than a reference speed difference; and in response to the redetermination condition being satisfied, resetting the vehicle speed to the set speed, (see Held at page 10 which discloses that in another example, the increased vehicle speed may be based on the set speed level maintained on the downhill road section and that the increased vehicle speed can, for example, correspond to the set speed level plus an offset speed and that the offset speed can be set manually by the driver, be determined automatically or correspond to a preset value. Examiner maps setting manually by the driver or determining automatically the preset value to resetting the vehicle speed to the set speed.)
Regarding claim 9, the modified Miller teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: after receiving the request of the function and the set speed, enabling an operation of the adaptive regenerative braking during the downhill driving; (see Miller at [0208] which discloses that the operator may also use driver controls 110 to control various functions and/or modes or operation of vehicle configuration 100; according to various examples, motor controller 102 may control the operation of vehicle configuration 100 and more particularly drive motor 104 in response to receiving control signals, inputs, etc. (e.g. from driver controls 110, drive motor 102, BMS 108, and/or various other components of vehicle configuration 100); see Miller at [0221] which discloses that Driver controls 110 may also comprise a Downhill SW_6 switch input thereby allowing the vehicle operator to implement a downhill control mode if the Downhill SW_6 switch is in the ON position; Examiner notes that enabling the Downhill SW_6 switch corresponds to enabling an operation of the adaptive regenerative braking during the downhill driving.)
before application of driving control according to the constant speed mode or during execution of the application, detecting whether or not a situation excluding application of the constant speed mode occurs; in response to the situation being detected, disabling the driving control according to the constant speed mode; and controlling the driving of the vehicle in another mode of the adaptive regenerative braking based on situation information of the detected situation (see Miller at [0247] which discloses that in the particular mode, motor controller 102 may be configured to automatically determine an amount of neutral braking torque to apply to slow the vehicle to a more or less constant speed; see Miller at [0250] which discloses that motor controller 102 may determine an amount of torque to apply to drive motor 104 when the vehicle is engaged in a regenerative braking mode in various manners; see Miller at [0254] which discloses that according to another implementation, motor controller 102 may be configured to select a neutral braking torque curve depending on a mode in which the vehicle is engaged, that for example, motor controller 102 may be configured to select a first neutral braking curve if the vehicle is engaged in a downhill neutral braking mode, a second neutral braking mode if the vehicle is engaged in a different mode, such as a maximum range mode or a maximum performance mode, and that a vehicle may be equipped with other driving modes and may be configured to select regenerative torque curves in various other manners as well. Examiner notes that another type of modes may be considered in response to determining that a constant speed mode is not optimal.)
Claim 11 is directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the method of claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claim 1 teaches the steps recited in the vehicle of claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claim 1. Furthermore, with respect to the vehicle of claim 11, see Miller at Fig. 1 which discloses a conceptual diagram of a vehicle configuration illustratively depicting front and rear wheels and battery pack. Also, see Miller at [0038] which discloses that an example apparatus implemented in accordance with the present disclosure includes a motor controller coupled to a drive motor and a battery pack of a vehicle, wherein the motor controller comprises a processor.)
Claims 12-15, 17 and 19 are directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the method of claims 2-5, 7, and 9. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 2-5, 7, and 9 teach the steps recited in the vehicle of claims 12-15, 17 and 19. Therefore, claims 12-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 2-5, 7, and 9.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2019/0126759) in view of Held et al. (DE 02023102838 A1) and further in view of Wei (CN 108357486 A).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Miller does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the driving of the vehicle to make the vehicle speed converge to the set speed comprises: compensating a required torque for driving control based on a change of slope of the downhill road on which the vehicle is running; and controlling the driving by using the compensated required torque, which in a related art Wei teaches (see Wei at the Abstract which discloses realizing accurate retarder braking torque compensation and that the invention realizes accurate retarder braking torque compensation, complete deceleration process at a higher brake efficiency, to ensure passenger safety.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Miller to include wherein controlling the driving of the vehicle to make the vehicle speed converge to the set speed comprises: compensating a required torque for driving control based on a change of slope of the downhill road on which the vehicle is running; and controlling the driving by using the compensated required torque, as taught by Wei.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure passenger safety, as suggested by Wei at the Abstract.
Claim 16 is directed toward a vehicle that performs the steps recited in the method of claim 6. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claim 6 teaches the steps recited in the vehicle of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 6.
Subject Matter Not Taught by Art of Record
Examiner notes that the art of record does not appear to teach each and every feature of each of claims 8, 10, 18, and 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights